Delhi High Court
Purshottam Dass vs M.L. Vohra on 21 December, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. Revision No.566/2015 & C.M. No.23921/2015
Decided on: 21st December, 2015
PURSHOTTAM DASS ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K. Rawal and Mr. Tarun Agarwal,
Advocates.
Versus
M.L. VOHRA ...... Respondents
Through: Counsel for the respondent (appearance
not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 31.07.2015, by virtue of which the learned Additional Rent
Controller has granted leave to defend to the respondent to contest the
Eviction Petition bearing No. 363/2013 in case titled as Purshottam Dass
Vs. M.L. Vohra
2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. I
have also gone through the record.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present petitioner
has filed the Eviction Petition against the respondent under Section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act in respect of one room on the third floor of property
bearing No. D-10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, which is stated to be let
out on a monthly rent of Rs.1100/- p.m. The entire property No.D-10,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 is a commercial in nature except one shop
situated on the ground floor. It has been alleged by the petitioner that his
adopted daughter named Priyasha was to complete her graduation in the
subject of Advertising from Janki Devi Memorial College, Delhi.
Therefore, she wanted to start a business related to advertising. Thus, the
petitioner requires the premises in question. It has been stated that
petitioner has no other reasonably and suitable accommodation available
to him in the entire property of D-10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
4. The respondent filed his leave to defend and contested the petition.
In the leave to defend application, the respondent pointed out that apart
from D-10, Laxmi Nagar, the petitioner has three storeyed building
comprising basement, ground to third floor on property bearing No. 294,
Gagan Vihar, Delhi available to him. He has a shop bearing U-200,
Ground Floor, Shakarpur, Delhi, which is stated to be in occupation of
Rajasthan Marble House. He is also the owner of a basement in Preet
Vihar and a flat no. 288, first floor, Gagan Vihar, Delhi, have also been
let out. All these accommodations are stated to be alternatively suitable
accommodation available to the petitioner for the purpose of starting the
business. In addition to this, it has been stated that one room in D-10,
first floor, was also got vacated by the petitioner, which was again let out
to one business enterprise by the name of M/s. Def Mart. It has been
stated that in case the petitioner genuinely required the premises for his
daughter, then the letting would not have been done. The respondent also
admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner one
Ramesh Chand Gupta. However, the present petitioner had refused to
accept the rent from the respondent only with a view to seek his eviction,
therefore the respondent was constraint to deposit the rent with the Rent
Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Some of the
properties, which have been retained by the respondent have been
admitted by the petitioner. He has admitted that his wife is the owner of
two flats in property No. 294, Gagar Vihar, which are being used by him
for residential purposes. Ownership of Shop No. U-200, Ground Floor,
Shakarpur, is also admitted, however, it is denied that he is the owner of
basement in Preet Vihar. The petitioner has also denied the ownership of
first floor of 288, Gagan Vihar, although, ownership of the basement is
admitted to be in the name of the petitioner, which is stated to have been
let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-p.m.. The petitioner has also
admitted that one room at D-10, Laxmi Nagar, which was vacated by the
tenant, was let out to M/s. Def Mart on a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/-p.m.
number of years earlier and not last year as submitted by the respondent.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions the learned ARC
came to the conclusion that the petitioner had alternative suitable
accommodation available to him at 294, Gagan Vihar, where admittedly
his wife is the owner of two flats. The learned Rent Controller has
observed that the family of the petitioner consists of only three persons
namely the petitioner, his wife and one adopted daughter and he has not
explained as to how he is utilizing two flats. On the basis of these facts,
the learned ARC formed a view that the respondent should be given the
leave to defend the Eviction Petition and accordingly granted the
permission.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. I do not find
anything improper or illegal in the reasoning given by the learned Rent
Controller for grant of permission to the respondent to contest the petition
as the bonafides of the present petitioner are suspect. In the first instance,
the petitioner ought to have disclosed the availability of other
accommodations in the Eviction Petition itself, which he has failed to do
so. On the contrary, it was left to the respondent-tenant to point out what
accommodations are available with the petitioner, which when disclosed,
have been explained by the petitioner to be either belonging to his wife or
to himself, but occupied by the tenants. All these facts, apart from the
concealment of material facts by the petitioner, also show that the
petitioner has sufficient accommodation available to him, prima facie
where his daughter can do the business. The bonafides of the petitioner
to seek eviction of the present tenant can be only established after the
petitioner enters into witness box and was subjected to cross-examination
and thus, the leave to defend has been rightly given by the learned ARC.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I feel that the present revision petition is
without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2015 / n
